![]() ![]() This change will be carried through to all hardlinked partners including the original. This is advantageous because it keeps all the associated links synchronized, but it's disadvantageous in cases where the hardlink is stored in a vulnerable location, and it's data is maliciously modified, or a user error is made in modifying a single link's data. This does NOT include 'deleting the link itself' (the link can be deleted as any other file without deleting the original file itself). Another feature which is both an advantage and disadvantage of hardlinks is that changing icon/path for the hardlink (changing hardlink data) ALSO changes THE ORIGINAL. The primary advantage is that they automatically update when you modify the original file, so changing 1 shortcut file (new path/icon) changes all associated hardlinks as well. ![]() The primary disadvantage is that they are almost impossible to backup easily (you need third party software or scripting to back them up to another dive or even to another location on the same drive). Hardlinks have a number of advantages and disadvantages. I've tested symbolic links (junctions are just for folders, not files, so they weren't tested) and these do NOT work (they are basically broken files when created, which fail to open). The best one I've come up with is to simply use Hardlinks, which point to the shortcut.lnk file. I completely understand the utility of linking to links, and I have been searching for an easy solution as well.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |